2015 (10) TMI 1711 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained credit - addition u/s 68 - Held that - Against the above addition the assessee approached to CIT(A) and filed additional evidence under Rule 46A on the plea that sufficient opportunity was not given by the AO insofar as documents were required by the AO at the fag end of the proceedings. We found that assessee was prevented by sufficient case for producing evidence. We also found that some of the documents were submitted during the assessment proceedings. However, proper explanation could not be filed due to paucity of time as assessment was getting time barred. After going through the various documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that the inter branch account which remained un-reconciled since 1984 require huge working to ascertain the difference. Without going much into merit of the addition, we restore the entire matter to the file of AO for deciding afresh after calling necessary documents from the assessee. The assessee is also at liberty to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. The AO is to decide the entire issue afresh. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of expenditure - CIT(A) restricted disallowance to 15% - Held that - In view of the findings recorded by CIT(A) for sustaining disallowance of 15% which has not been controverted by ld. AR by bringing any positive material on record, we confirm the action of the CIT(A) for disallowing a sum of ₹ 3,22,401/-. - Decided in favour of assessee in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Ad-hoc disallowance of expenses at 15% of the total expenses.

Issue 1: Addition of Unexplained Credit:
The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of a specific amount as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The contention was that the entries in the account were primarily reconciliation entries between different accounts, originating in earlier assessment years. The appellant argued that the entries were related to the sale proceeds of a house, and the long-term capital gain had already been offered in the income computation. It was emphasized that the inter-branch transfer was not income or expenditure but merely a fund transfer. The AO disallowed certain expenses due to lack of justification and supporting evidence, especially noting a discrepancy in the manufacturing activity. The appellant provided details regarding the sale of a flat and a loan taken, supported by relevant documents and ledger accounts. Despite some discrepancies in the confirmation of the loan transaction, the AO held a portion of the amount as unexplained cash credit. The appellant also highlighted errors in debiting certain amounts and differences in capital account balances, providing explanations and supporting documents.

Issue 2: Ad-hoc Disallowance of Expenses:
The AO initially disallowed the entire expenses, later reducing it to 25% after considering evidence during remand proceedings. The CIT(A) further reduced the disallowance to 15%. The appellant failed to provide additional material to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings on sustaining the 15% disallowance. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the disallowance of a specific amount as expenses. The appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the tribunal addressed the issues of unexplained credit addition and ad-hoc disallowance of expenses in detail. The decision was made based on the arguments presented by the appellant, the assessment by the AO, and the findings of the CIT(A). The tribunal upheld certain aspects of the CIT(A)'s order while directing a fresh assessment on the unexplained credit issue. The detailed analysis and considerations of each issue led to the partial allowance of the appeal.